Wong Bun Chun v Tam Chuen Yee

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ3023/1971
Judgment Date:13 Dec 1971
DCCJ003023/1971 WONG BUN CHUN v. TAM CHUEN YEE

DCCJ003023/1971

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO.3023 OF 1971

-----------------

Between
WONG BUN CHUN Plaintiff
and
TAM CHUEN YEE Defendant

-----------------

Coram: W.S. Collier, D.J.

Date of Judgment: 13 December 1971.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. In this case the plaintiff claims possession of domestic premises, a flat, upon the ground that the defendant is in occupation as a licensee and that the licence had been determined by the plaintiff. No reference is made in the particulars of claim of any fee, or payment made as consideration for the licence.

2. The defendant says in the Defence that this is a tenancy for which rent was paid is, accordingly protected by the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance Cap.338.

3. When the case came on for trial, I enquired of the plaintiff's solicitor if it were admitted that sums of money were received by the plaintiff each month, as alleged in the Defence, and the plaintiff's solicitor admitted that these payments were made.

4. It appeared that both the solicitors considered that the case turned upon the question "Is the relationship between the parties that of landlord and tenant, or licensor and licensee?" That is the state of affairs under the Rent Acts in England.

5. However, I referred solicitors to the definition in the Rent Increases (Domestic Premises) Control Ordinance which reads:

"Tenant or sub-tenant does not include a Crown leasee but includes -

(a) a person who is in possession of premises to which this Ordinance applies on the commencement of this Ordinance;
(b) a person who shall retain possession of any premises by virtue of this Ordinance."

6. I indicated that it appeared that that definition could include a licensee who was in possession of domestic premises at the commencement of the Ordinance. It was common ground that the defendant was in possession of domestic premises at the commencement of the Ordinance.

7. I then adjourned the hearing so that solicitors and I could see if any authority upon the point was forthcoming.

8. Each of us read through the definition sections of the various Acts in England, which appear conveniently in Part 2 of the tenth edition of "The Rent Acts" and agreed that there was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial